I Haag's Theorem: Explain Free Field Nature

Click For Summary
Haag's theorem asserts that free fields and interacting fields exist in different, unitarily inequivalent Hilbert spaces, meaning a free field cannot transform into an interacting one. The theorem highlights the mathematical ill-definition of transitioning from free to interacting fields due to infrared divergences. While this poses challenges for traditional perturbative methods, alternative approaches like the algebraic framework effectively address these issues. The algebraic approach is designed to handle unitarily inequivalent representations, making Haag's theorem less problematic in that context. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for advancing quantum field theory.
lindberg
Messages
40
Reaction score
20
TL;DR
Can someone explain in simple terms why, according to Haag's theorem, a free field cannot become an interacting one?
What is the main reason for a free field staying free according to Haag's theorem?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The formal transformation from a free to an interacting field turns out to be mathematically ill defined due to an IR divergence (infinite volume in which the fields live). For details, I highly recommend the book A. Duncan, The Conceptual Framework of Quantum Field Theory, section 10.5 How to stop worrying about Haag's theorem.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes aaroman, bhobba, lindberg and 2 others
lindberg said:
according to Haag's theorem, a free field cannot become an interacting one?
That's not quite what Haag's theorem says. A free field and an interacting field are different things, and one cannot "become" the other, regardless of what Haag's theorem or any other mathematical result says.

Haag's theorem says, basically, that free fields and interacting fields live in different, unitarily inequivalent Hilbert spaces. To someone who is used to the usual way of modeling interacting fields as perturbations of free fields, this seems like a problem; but there are other approaches to quantum field theory, such as the algebraic approach, in which it is not a problem at all.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes aaroman, bhobba, lindberg and 2 others
PeterDonis said:
To someone who is used to the usual way of modeling interacting fields as perturbations of free fields, this seems like a problem; but there are other approaches to quantum field theory, such as the algebraic approach, in which it is not a problem at all.
Wasn't Haag's conclusion extended later to other approaches?
I might be wrong, don't hesitate to correct me.

An Algebraic Version of Haag’s Theorem​

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00220-011-1236-7
 
lindberg said:
Wasn't Haag's conclusion extended later to other approaches?
Given that the whole point of the algebraic approach to QFT is to be able to deal with unitarily inequivalent representations, showing that the algebraic approach leads to unitarily inequivalent representations isn't much of an issue.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and topsquark
For the quantum state ##|l,m\rangle= |2,0\rangle## the z-component of angular momentum is zero and ##|L^2|=6 \hbar^2##. According to uncertainty it is impossible to determine the values of ##L_x, L_y, L_z## simultaneously. However, we know that ##L_x## and ## L_y##, like ##L_z##, get the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. In other words, for the state ##|2,0\rangle## we have ##\vec{L}=(L_x, L_y,0)## with ##L_x## and ## L_y## one of the values ##(-2,-1,0,1,2) \hbar##. But none of these...

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
371
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 108 ·
4
Replies
108
Views
15K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
487